Friday, September 3, 2010
Blog #1: How do you interpret Baudrillard's concept of the simulacra? Identify/describe other simulacras...
Hi all- it's been a pleasure having all of you in class and talking with you! For your first blog entry which is due by 12:00PM on 9/9, please respond to the question posed above as you also read through your peers' responses. In your responses, please take into consideration class discussions, readings, peer comments, and outside experiences, etc. Please note the authors and theories we have discussed in your responses. Your answer is thorough when you have included these aspects. Have fun!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mind-shock. If I had sum up my response of Simulacra in one word that would be it. To have something challenge the very basis of my existence and actually succeed in making me question is astounding. I think about all the choices in my life that I have made, and how they have been influenced by ideas and values that could have been based on nothing.
ReplyDeleteI was labeled a nerd in highschool and I followed that code. The entire ecosystem that is high school is a simulacra in itself. There is no basis for the roles and labels we used, yet I let them define who I was, what I did, who I hung out with. I spent my free periods in the gifted students room making lego robots and working on Model UN Debate speeches. I spent my Saturdays going to Student Congress debates for Forensics club. Now I'm not saying I didn't enjoy those activities, but I wonder how my life would have been different if I wasn't influenced by that label.
I believe in god and Roman Catholicism, and while Baudrillard hasn't shaken my faith that much, I would be lying if I didn't say the idea that this is all a copy of nothing scares me. I liked the feeling of having a ever watchful protector. In this simulacra that Baudrillard describes God is just as fake as everything else.
I don't think however Baudrillard means everything he wrote to be taken that substantially. I don't believe he thinks we are living in a Matrix. Rather that he is challenging these roles and identities that define people because they have no basis, they are copies of nothing. Things like gender, race, vocation, sexuality all come with stock values and traditions that pigeon hole people and yet have no basis for their existence. From my understanding of Baudrillard I feel we are living according to a Simulacra rather then living in a Simulacra.
I agree that simulacra was hard for me to understand merely by just reading. I too used the notes and what we learned in class to come up with the concept that simulacra can be a copy of something without there really being something prior to make a copy of.According to Baudrillard the world, as we know it now, is constructed on the representation of representations. I think what he is trying to tell us that it seems we are living in simulacra. This could make sense of a lot of things the problem is that we really don't know for sure whether this is right. I think that just because this is Baudrillard idea doesn't necessarily mean that this is true. I believe that this is what makes simulacra so confusing.
ReplyDeleteI, too, was really confused when I started reading Simulacra and Simulation. The notes were a really helpful tool in figuring the information out. I think that something even more interesting than understanding Baudrillard's explanation that we are living in a simulacra is that many people don't care to question why they are doing something, or why something represents what it does.
ReplyDeleteIf we think about American or world traditions that we ourselves follow, I'm sure a lot of us have no idea where they actually came from. This is how I see the world when I think about Baudrillard's theory. We are all interacting with objects and ideas that we don't know have an original, but because it is a part of our lives, we don't question it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can also agree that the concept of simulacra as Baudrillard puts it was hard for me to understand. I think the additional notes and discussion in class helped me understand a little bit more. I'm still not fully understanding just because I have never really thought of the world being a copy of what it used to be many many years ago. I am a Catholic and I believe in a life after this world and that it started many many years ago but I never actually thought of what the representation of our world was before the actual "map of the universe".
ReplyDeleteI can kind of understand when Baudrillard says that we are are living in copies of what once was simply because in our history we can see how people, places, and things change from an original version. Sometimes we dont not even realize what the original version is because it is copied so many times that we lose track of the original.
I agree with Jordan that just because Baudrillard's has this idea doesn't mean it is true and that is what makes simulacra so confusing for me.
The quote that I believe sums up how I interpret Simulacra and Simulation is “To be Punk is to pose” (SLC Punk), this quote brings me back to my previous life as a high school student. I fell into the trap of labeling. I was labeled a goth/punk during my career as a high school student and I allowed these labels to form who I was and what I based my opinions and choices on. I felt by being a “goth” or a “punk” I was being original and rebelling against the mainstream, only to discover a few years later I would make the realization that “To be punk is to pose” really had a meaning in my life. I was attempting to live a life based on conforming to some type of set rules and cultural norms. Was this not what I was attempting to avoid in the first place? It always came down to standing in a crowd of 100 people wearing leather jackets with leopard print and patches sewn on them with various types of spikes pushed through the leather. We were all there to listen to the same music that conformed to the standards of being “punk rock” and all of us thinking “Yeah, I’m such an individual”, but in reality we were all the same.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of posing according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is “an attitude, role, or characteristic assumed for effect.” Simulacra and Simulation challenges us to see that this is the definition of many things in our lives. We all assume certain roles or have certain attitudes based on personal experiences, the type of location, the people around us, and many more of the things we are exposed to daily to achieve a desired effect. The effect is how we and others perceive us in these roles. I am a woman in a man’s world, I am a mother, I am a sports star, I am a punk, I am a cat/dog care taker. Simulacra and Simulation challenges us to think why we assume these roles and to question what they are actually based on.
I believe that Baudrillard has a valid point. Why are we basing what defines us on things that we do not know the meaning of or understand?
As many have already previously stated, I too was quite confused by the concept of simulacra and had actually never even heard of the concept before taking this class.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if it was being explained in more of a general manner than a bunch of "quarter words" then I would of understood it better just from reading the book, however, the notes were a helpful addition.
In general, due to the fact that I never heard of simulacra before, I found the concept quite interesting and eye-opening. I thought that Baudrillard gave excellent examples that one would not normally think about. My favorite examples that he gave were the "fake illness" theory and his theory on a "fake holdup" at a bank because they really put simulacra intro perception about how much of life truly can be simulated.
When it comes to comparing simulacra to life and pop culture, reality TV instantly came to mind (for me at least). Reality TV is extremely manipulated and edited to put together a dramatic story to hold a viewers attention.
I watched a special on E! (Entertainment Television) about the MTV reality show, The Real World. It talked about the original season all the way up to the present day seasons. Past cast members being interviewed told the truth about certain things that were manipulated by producers and editors to be more dramatic. They spoke of cases where things happened days apart, but were edited to look like they all came from the same night.
All in all, I feel that the simulacra concept can really be used in perceiving things from every day life, from things that we see in the news to political issues to things we are being taught in the classroom.
I like what Kim Scarns has to say about Simulacra. I too was having trouble with the concept before our class discussion and notes. It is a very deep concept. I understand the idea that everything is a copy of a copy without a original. That being said, is it fair to say that the human race has no chance to do something new and original? Every word we say, thought we think, and idea we birth has already been done? That is where I get a little confused.
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard says "The territory no longer proceeds the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that proceeds the territory-precession of simulacra-that engenders the territory, and if one must return to the fable, today it is the territory whose shreds slowly rot across the extent of the map." I am not totally sure what Baudrillard is trying convey, but I think the idea is that we already have these ideas, images, and thoughts on how everything is to be, but we got these ideas,images, and thoughts from where? The place where we should have derived these from is no longer present, and we just go with what we know and what is presented to us.
Kim mentions how there really isn't any original plotlines for stories anymore because they have all been done in some form or another over the years. I understand that. What if someone comes up with an idea purely on their own, and it just happens to be exactly what someone else has already done. Are they copying? If they had no prior knowledge or exposure to that idea, I think there is an argument that their idea is original. Even when I site sources for papers I get confused sometimes. Some of my ideas I have are my ideas, but I may use help from other things I observe. Are we going to get to the point where we can't write anything because it has all been said before? I doubt it. I think history definitley repeats itself, we all borrow ideas from each other, but we will never lose the ability to be original.
Great responses friends--- keep em' coming!
ReplyDeleteI definately agree with what David Dazet says. Honestly, when I read the first part of the book it took me like two hours. No matter how hard I tried to grasp the concept I just couldn't. It almost made me feel stupid in a way because I knew I was totally overanalyzing everything and probably making it way harder than what it is.
ReplyDeleteThe class notes, well thank God for them. However, before the class notes I would like to name a few parts from the book that I actually understood in a way. First being, "To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have", which makes me think of the act of being jealous. Also, "Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed snf make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms". "...and medicine loses its meaning since it only knows how to treat 'real' illnesses according to their objective causes". I can actually understand that because I am sure almost everyone has faked an illness at one time or another.
The next example I understood was "Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra. It is first of all a play of illusions and phantasms: the Pirates, the Frontier, the Future World, etc". Following that Baudrillard talks about the real is no longer real which makes me think of what David said. It's like nothing is real anymore, anything that has been thought of or is thought of is no longer an original because it was all thought of before. That is deep to me, never would I have thought of this concept on my own and really I find it kind of depressing because it's like when people actually try to think of new things and be original they really aren't because it was already done.
To answer Julie- we base ourselves on what we believe things to be. We put meaning to the things we are exposed to daily. If a song were to begin playing and loud guitars, screaming vocals, and pulsing drums came on, some people would hear just cacophony, others hear ridiculous guitar scales, deep bass lines, and two-step double bass drums in perfect harmony. Just because someone tells you one thing is (or isn't) another doesn't mean we can perceive it the way we want. We express our perceptions and beliefs in ways that we ourselves enjoy, not because someone says it's the cool thing to do. The way we see the world is through our own eyes, not anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAs for Simulation and Simulacra, all I have to say is not only does the author insist on overloading sentences with huge words and phrases that really can be "dumbed down" so others those who actually want to read it can actually follow the ideas. And as for our reality being a fake? Disneyland a simulation? If our reality is fake then what else could possibly exist? It is scientifically proven that the Earth has been around for billions of years, how could a fake reality possibly exist for that long, and also in the process include the ages of dinosaurs, the beginning of man, and Lad Zeppelin? Disneyland is simply a place that brings happiness and enjoyment through rides, toys, cotton candy, and sweaty people in large animal suits. It doesn't make all of us forget there's a real world outside the walls, full of diseases, war, and unpaid student loans. It doesn't represent a fake reality, simply a much needed distraction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMuch like everyone else I also had a hard time understanding the concept of Simulacra. What I think the concept is trying to communicate is the fact that the concept is the concept. It says that it hides no truth but is the truth. To me this conveys the idea that there is nothing that is real except the true fact of life and existence which can never be denied only tested and questioned about. We know we live we know things live this is true but at the same time what comes after? Same life? Same truth? Same Simulacrum?
ReplyDeleteLike everyone else, I had no idea what I was reading when I started the book. I found myself reading an entire page and then thinking, what in the world just happened. The notes and class discussion were very helpful and I am learning more as I read the blog posts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan and Kayla, I did not like when Baudrillard stated that God was just as fake as everything else. I have a strong faith and believe that God is real and that someday his followers will join Him in heaven. That statement just did not sit well with me and caused me to think that Baudrillard is crazy and his whole idea of the simulacra is false.
However, there are parts of his simulacra that I do agree with. For example, I can see that the aspects of the world have been copied. You can see it in chick flicks that constantly have the same story line but in a new city or with new characters. Or that most peoples thoughts or opinions have been molded by the ideas and opinions from others in the world. Like this blog, I feel like everything I would have said has already been stated, so I am currently just reiterating what others have posted and attempting to make them my own thoughts and ideas.
So I guess I just want to know what it was like at the beginning when everything was fresh and new and not an imitation or a label, when people had original thoughts and ideas that molded the world we live in today.
Personally, I like what he is trying to show through his concept of Simulacra - our current reality is only signs and symbols, an evolution of what once was original and true. Pessimistically speaking, we have no way of figuring out what 'original' is. All we know, according to Baudrilllard, is what society, through media and culture, tells us to know and how to view our reality.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Disneyland being a false reality like our version of reality is fascinating to me. Because I work at the Renaissance Festival, I've seen people believe what we are portraying as real, both children and adults. After the ten hours spent in the 'fantasy' are over for the patrons, they are reawakened to the harsh sense of 'reality'. In place of carriages they climb into cars, and beyond the gates flower garlands would be frowned upon if they wore them in public. It is the false sense of reality that keeps them coming back.
As I was reading, I found myself very open to Baudrillard's ideas, but I fear the text is too heavy for my brain to decode by myself. In education, we've learned that if the students cannot connect the material to their reality, then learning will be exceedingly difficult. So, I feel, like many of the other commentators, that the group discussion and the notes in class helped me the most to understand these alien concepts.
While I can appreciate what Baudrillard has to say, I can't say that I completely agree. I understand what he describes as simulacra, but I'm philosophically-oriented in the other direction. As self-absorbed as it sounds, I simply can't get out of my own head. Through all of his talk of TV, the media, and world politics, I can't help but to think of MY reactions to events, ideas, and things. If it's real and original to me, is it a simulacrum?
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I'd like to touch on specifically is Baudrillard's take on war. I'm glad that he makes a point to say that, in any war, "the flesh suffers just the same, and the dead and former combatants are worth the same." However, he does argue that the motivations for war are non-changing, that the game of war is the simulacrum. Perhaps an ordinary citizen would agree, but, as a veteran (one who, again, can't get out of her head), when I think of war, I go back to an actual place in time. If I don't remember every minute of my experience "at war," then I remember every day. The details that remain are haunting. To think that this was anything other than reality is laughable. Maybe the political reasons I went to war are ordinary and recycled. But MY reasons are my own. They're very original and very real. If I were to go again, I'm sure that my experiences, reactions, and perspectives would be just as intense, perhaps different, and yet very real.
Upon first picking up Jean Baudrillard’s Simulacra and Simulation I knew it was going to be a challenging, but mind grasping read. The concept of these simulacra can be a confusing concept to wrap your mind around. Simulacra, as defined by the dictionary, means a slight, unreal, or superficial likeness or semblance. I believe Baudrillard’s initial idea is that we have become so dependent on using models, or simulations, that reality itself has begun to shape into these simulations, therefore reality begins to develop into a simulacrum. I also think Baudrillard is not trying to say there is no such thing as reality, but I believe he is trying to say no one really knows what the idea of real reality is anymore. The reason for this is because we have begun to base all of our opinions and certain beliefs off of already existing models, which creates these simulacra.
ReplyDeleteWhen thinking about other simulacra to identify I remembered talking in class about how simulacra are so prevelant today in religion. I feel this can be seen with some individuals who worship statues or objects instead of the ideas and actions of certain biblical individuals. These individuals who hold more faith in a religious item rather than an actual spiritual link proves Baudrillard’s point exactly. Reading over some of the other posts above me I liked the ideas coming from some people that the entire high school scene itself was a simulacrum. When thinking about that it is true. These preconceived notions we have about people based on there appearance is just a simulation based on something that was not real in the first place.
Like some other people have said before me in this blog I do not believe Baudrillard has completely lost faith in all that is real. I believe the real point he was trying to make was to enlighten his readers. He wanted to have them step back from everything going on in their lives and question if some of the things they stood for actually stood for anything real. Baudrillard definitely had an extreme look on our world, but I am excited to dig deeper into his ideas and hopefully develop some substantial ones of my own.
Yeah, I know its 3:42 in the morning and this is a little last minute, but this way I got the chance to really ingest what all of you have said already...
ReplyDeleteTo start my blog I will agree with the rest of the class that this book really really wraps your brain. I mean there have been times where I've ready something and had to re-read it a few times... but this you can't do that.. if you do you will begin to pound your head into the wall. haha. But it is however quite interesting read and Baudrillard really does take you out of your comfort zone.
I completely agree with my fellow classmates about Baudrillard's comments about God being fake. I attended Catholic school all my life until I came to IUP, (yup thats right, catholic school girl) I am not the most devout follower; however, I do have strong religious roots and I take my faith seriously. Like Emily Trenney said, this caused me to really dislike this book right off the bat, but I stuck to it and continued.
When we discussed simulacra in class and the idea that it is a copy without an original, and that Dr. Miller said there would never be another innovative new idea or invention, I'm not going to lie, it bummed me out a little. It seems so depressing and almost as if human thoughts aren't important if you are speaking from Baudrillard's point of view. However, what I do agree with is that people are so wrapped up in the NOW, that they often forget about what was the original of that idea of innovation. This is why as a future Social Studies teacher (yeah i had to throw that in there) I believe it is my job to educate the youth about the foundations of life and society in general.
On the other hand of things is simulation, and I like Travis, disagree with the whole Disneyland comparison. I do believe Disneyland is some sort of utopian place to visit, but i do not believe people think of it as an alternate world to escape reality. To me it is just a magical place where one can get away for a few days, spend time with their families, and get some Disney characters' autographs.
Similar to most alot of other people i was very confused and had to reread alot of the begining.Then i just relized that the book is made to think outside the box and if i keep reading the same parts i am never going to get done with it. I also agree with e.t.pany it was interesting while still putting me outside my comfort zone.
ReplyDeleteAlong with e.t.pany i was also a catholic school girl for most of my life. I have stopped going to church due to many reason, but one was not because of my belief in God. Unlike some wityh a strong belief i wanted to see more about what Baudrillard wanted to say about God being fake and kept tring to figure it out. The book had many ideas that just made me think from a differant perspective.
So it looks like I'm the last one huh? I agree with e.t.pany's assessment of the book. I was also immediately turned off from the book when it started discounting the existance of God. I did absorb the information though, and I do think that the idea of the simulacra is very interesting. One thing from class that stuck out to me was socio-political messages. This book is riddled with explicit socio-political messages evidenced by the references to marxism. Everything you beleive is fake, God, family, etc., but what he believes is obviously the truth because he presents his arguments by way of the tongue of a wordsmith. It may not sound like it but I did enjoy the reading. It made me think and that is what I am here for. The concept of the simulacra can be used and interpreted subjectively which makes it very interesting to me. I would say that he overstates the lack of original copies, trees were here before man and they are still trees and that is an absolute truth.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in what Emery states about trees being an absolute truth. I wonder if then we can say that the simulacra is man made...? If the earth, its products, and its creatures are in fact real at the same time that the simulacra exists then it must be a product of man. Therefore, we have created for ourselves this fake and sort of mindless world.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the simulacra reminds me of the children's game "telephone". The players sit in a circle and one person whispers a word or phrase into the ear of one of the players next to them. The phrase is passed along the circle this way until, by the time it gets all the way around, it sounds nothing like the original. Each time the phrase is passed it changes and by the time it reaches the end only the first player knows what the phrase was when they began. Just like the concept of the simulacra, we only posses a faux reality of copies, with no concept of the original.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah H saying that all we know, according to Baudrilllard, is what society, through media and culture, tells us to know and how to view our reality. This is true because how do we know what was original we are so caught up in the way society is today. Society differs from what it used to be like. We now have advances in cell phones, computers, and television, unlike when Dr. Miller was growing up (what was said in class not saying due to age!).
ReplyDeleteI also was a Catholic school girl like e.t.pany and I agree completely! I am not the most devout follower either but I still disagree with Baudrillard saying that God is fake. That is a strong comment to make and I know many people have a hard time reading that like i did!
I feel this text was very hard to understand I did the best that I could to understand it and had to keep rereading.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMuch like the rest of the class, I was very confused on the reading by Baudillard. However, after reading the notes I got an idea of what means by a simulacra. A simulacra is a copy without an original that no longer measure itself to something else. I like how he used Disneyland as an example. I thought it was very interesting how he looked at disneyland as a false reality just like our reality. He does bring up the fact that god is as fake as everything else. I agree with Emily, because i also have a strong faith and believe god as real. Some of Beudillard's ideas are just difficult to understand How can you have a copy without an original? It just makes you look at things from a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to come off as sounding like a know it all or intellectually superior, because the book was still a labyrinth to get through, but the ideas are not as much of a mind fuck as many others have suggested. I actually embrace these concepts. I have long since based my ideas on the idea that you cannot prove anything.
ReplyDeleteI've used to ask people that if you ever learned that everything you ever learned was a lie, would you embrace the truth or cling to the lie. I am reminded of this when I read about people dismissing his ideas when they clash with their own, particularly in the realm of religion. I find it discouraging when people stop listening whenever you start suggested ideas that clash with their own- this is called being closed minded.
The idea of tradition is brought to mind when I read this. Traditions of ideas or ceremony that originated hundreds or thousands of years ago, end people do it or think it because they always have.
However, whether everything is fake, or doesn't exist, this can only be the foundation of a philosophy or idea because at some point you either must accept it or assume that everything exists in order to move forward intellectually.
In response to Franks post....its not that people are neccessarily closed minided, but when you read a book that discredits one ideology as fake while it simultaneously champions an opposing ideology as the truth it makes me feel that maybe I'm not the one that is closed minded. Its kind of like the least tolerant person or sect of a society preaching tolerance. I would say that I accept the theory but maybe not the motive. Whos to say that the ideology that is implied in the writing isnt a simulacra of its own that was created with the same building blocks or intentions as the other simulacras. I beleive that you can prove things. Maybe not spiritual but if you discredit the notion that there are absolute truths than even science is deemed useless. An example of a simulacra that I came up with is the government or governments of the world. Could they be a simulation of the family? Perhaps replacing parental authority with parens patrae.
ReplyDeleteI can also agree that the concept of simulacra as Baudrillard puts it was hard for me to understand. I think the additional notes and discussion in class helped me understand a little bit more.
ReplyDeleteIn the book Baudrillard refers to the concept of God as being fake or unreal due to simulacra. I am a Catholic and I believe in a life after this world. Refering to what Emery stated above about not being the closed minded one of Baudrillards idealogy, I feel the same way because maybe he is not taking the time to think outside of the box when it comes to God which sometimes is a hard concept for people to actually grasp because you never see God which can make it hard for people to believe. I think that by believing in God means that I am taking the chance of believing in a simulacra just because the only version I see of God is through church or the Bible since there is no way to see the actual artifact of God.
I can kind of understand when Baudrillard says that we are are living in copies of what once was simply because in our history we can see how people, places, and things change from an original version. Sometimes we dont not even realize what the original version is because it is copied so many times that we lose track of the original.
I agree with Jordan that just because Baudrillard's has this idea doesn't mean it is true and that is what makes simulacra so confusing for me. The way I am interpreting "Simulacra" in a simple way is that it is simply a representation of an original of something that gives us a belief that the original is real even if we never see the original. Such as having a monument in Washington D.C. for Abraham Lincoln and seeing that is my way of thinking he is real and existed even though I never actually seen Lincoln as an original artifact. (Might seem irrelevant but it is what is making this subject easier for me to understand!)
I found Baudrillard's writing to be difficult to read and interpret. Everyone that has posted a blog about the reading all agree that Baudrillard used a unique writing style that doesn't mesh well with the content or audience.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Sarah H said about how Baudrillard can't effectively educate his audience without proper communication. While I was reading, I found myself stopping and trying to analyze every paragraph much to often.
With the theory of lies and thought of real or unreal realty is really played out. I hate to read or watch that stuff. Baudrillard didn't cover anything new here.
I really liked what xhalieghx said about Simulacra possibly being man made, I feel the same way. Simularca is a man made idea and reality is what we as people make it out to be. Disneyland and death camps are both real and both play roles in our reality.
I also agree with Durfee because I also found Baudrillard's writing to be difficult to read and interpret. I think that Baudrillard writing style was interesting but I also felt that it was very confusing.
ReplyDeleteI think that Baudrillard assumes that the readers are already educated in the topic and at hand which is why I think it tends to get confusing if you in fact aren't sure what is being said.
As for Stimulcara I also agree with xhalleghx that Simulacra possibly being a man made. I think that people that in our society there are a lot of places that are man made and could be consider a simularca. This is why I feel that that simularca is more of a man made idea in today's society.
"The simulacrum is never what hides the truth--it is truth that hides the fact that there is none. The simulacrum is true."
ReplyDelete~~Ecclesiastes
While reading the first part of Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, I asked myself many questions while reading. First being, what the hell is a simulacra, second, how does this correlate with popular culture. As I made it through more of the introduction I began to understand why my professor chose this book and not something else. Actually what Baudrillard is saying makes perfect sense to what we are discussing throughout the course and although I had a hard time picking up at first, I get the general idea that as a culture we have become over consummed by a fanatical reality where everything is perfect and utopian.
He uses Disneyland as an example of this and I think that was the first moment I felt something click while reading. Why do we spend hundreds of dollars, wait in lines, do the whole ordeal in general, just to get a glipse of a childlike world in which everything is perfect and everyone is happy? Ever notice how unhappy some people look in amusement parks? It's hot, sticky, people everywhere, weird carnies running rides while spitting chewing tobacco, moms strolling sleepy babies, fathers sneaking off to take business calls, what is the point? Is it because it is so perfectly "American" that we feel we have to partake in to be considered normal. Even though Baudrillard published this in the early 80s, many of his points are still, if not more, relevant to today's society.
What suprised me the most was that the introduction read like philosophical discourse but then Baudrillard uses examples that make his points much more clear to me and breaks it down so I understand his ideas and theories. I keep going back to the Disneyland example but only because he explained it to me in a way that makes me think differently. He writes,
"Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the "real" country, all of "real" America that is Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal omnipresence that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation."
which to me is sheer brillance, a "why didn't I think of that" moment, and also a great start to Simulacra and Simulation.